AG thinks Verizon should be fined $100,000 per day for pushing wireless plans.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman this week accused Verizon of trying to "depart from a century of telephone service regulation" by ending wireline telephone service in a part of Fire Island devastated by Hurricane Sandy in October, 2012.

In addition, Schneiderman has accused Verizon of violating a state order by telling customers outside of Fire Island that they should accept wireless phone service instead of repairs to their landline service. He says Verizon should be fined $100,000 per customer, per day.

Verizon says it has not violated the state order, and that its offer of wireless service outside Fire Island is strictly optional. Verizon is, however, trying to gain state approval to end wireline service entirely in western Fire Island.

Killing the public switched telephone network, one step at a time

It's no secret that telcos want to abandon the traditional public switched telephone network (PSTN) and switch to all-IP networks. AT&T has asked the Federal Communications Commission to lead this transition and also get rid of the "conventional public-utility style regulation" associated with landline phone service.

Such a transition will take years on a national level, but it's happening on a small scale in Fire Island, where Verizon says the infrastructure costs of repairing damaged phone lines are too great. On May 3 of this year, Verizon asked the New York Public Service Commission to allow the discontinuation of wireline phone service in western Fire Island and let Verizon replace it with a similarly priced wireless phone service called Voice Link.

Verizon's proposal would also pave the way for all-wireless deployments in other parts of New York. Verizon proposes amending state regulations to allow wireless-only service when facilities are destroyed or when it is simply deemed reasonable because of geographic location or availability of competing services.

Before Hurricane Sandy, Verizon provided voice service to about 1,100 customers on eastern Fire Island and to 2,700 customers on western Fire Island. In the western part, Verizon says its copper infrastructure suffered extensive damage, making repair costly and difficult. That's why Verizon would rather provide Voice Link, which uses the same cellular technology as conventional mobile phones and places a small transmitter and receiver in customers' houses. The unit's battery life has raised concerns that residents would only have a few hours of voice time during power outages.

"For the present, Verizon believes it can continue to provide service in the eastern portion of Fire Island through the use of existing land line facilities," Verizon said in its proposal. "However, in the western portion of the Island, where a large percentage of Verizon's copper facilities were damaged beyond repair, Verizon is offering a wireless service known as 'Verizon Voice Link' as its principal service option. Where existing copper pairs are still functional, Verizon will continue to use them to provide service to the extent possible. However, Voice Link service will be provided where outside plant facilities were destroyed by Hurricane Sandy, and as surviving copper facilities go out of service. All orders for new service will be fulfilled using Voice Link."

On May 16, the Public Service Commission permitted Verizon to deploy Voice Link services "pending further review," in the interest of getting phone service to customers quickly. But the commission did not authorize Verizon to exit the wireline phone market in western Fire Island. Verizon's "general market exit" proposal was suspended "pending further review."

Schneiderman wants the commission to require Verizon to keep offering wireline phone service in all areas, or force Verizon to exit the market entirely and be replaced by another carrier. On Tuesday, Schneiderman wrote:

For over a century, the Commission has maintained a consistent policy promoting universal access to wireline telephone service. Approving Verizon's Voice Link tariff proposal would abandon this long-established commitment. Replacing wireline networks with a wireless Voice Link service would deprive customers of the ability to continue using wireline-dependent services such as fax machines, alarm systems, medical alert devices, and Digital Subscriber Line Internet access that serve essential security and commercial needs, as well as enable participation in 21st century digital communications on the Internet. Unlike wireline service, which continues to function even when customers lose electric power, Voice Link's backup battery only allows a brief period of use during blackouts, when customers' need to communicate is often greatest.

The Commission should not jettison wireline service merely because Verizon business strategy prefers a wireless business plan. Many incumbent local exchange providers continue to provide wireline telephone service to customers, both in New York and across the nation. The Commission should instead require that Verizon divest those portions of its New York franchise where it is no longer willing to continue providing wireline service and replace Verizon with another carrier that will provide wireline service.

Verizon disagrees, of course. In a statement sent to Ars, Verizon said it "uses the best technologies to meet our customers’ needs, and Voice Link is an innovative use of a proven product that is already delivering reliable voice service to satisfied customers on Fire Island and in other areas. It’s an excellent solution for customers with lingering difficulties with their copper-based telephone service, utilizing a resilient technology that tens of millions of people use each day."

As for Schneiderman's claims regarding power outages, Verizon said that "unfortunately, a falling tree or branch does not discriminate and can just as easily knock down a power line as it can a phone line."

Hundreds of Fire Island residents have written to the commission, most opposing Verizon's plan to go all wireless. "The Voice Link system, which has only been up and operational for less than a month, is a substandard service to that which was available prior to the storm," one resident wrote.

The issue will play out over several months. The commission recently extended the deadline for comments to September 13.

AG wants Verizon to pay $100,000 penalties

In addition to the question of whether Verizon should be able to exit the wireline business in western Fire Island, Schneiderman says Verizon should face multiple $100,000 fines for allegedly violating the commission's limited approval of Voice Link deployments.

On June 26, Schneiderman filed an "emergency petition … preventing Verizon from illegally installing Voice Link service in violation of its tariff," saying that Verizon violated the commission order by expanding Voice Link service outside of western Fire Island, in the Catskills village of Monticello. The AG wrote:

The Attorney General's Office has recently learned that Verizon intends to require customers outside of the Fire Island pilot area seeking to have their wireline service installed accept instead wireless Voice Link service, notwithstanding the Commission's May 16 Order. According to reports by representatives of the Communications Workers of America, Verizon has delivered a pallet load of Voice Link devices to its Monticello Installation/Maintenance Center, and has instructed its technicians in that region to provide summer seasonal customers returning to Catskill vacation homes, who have long received Verizon wireline service, only Voice Link service. The union's report is corroborated by two complaints of Verizon seasonal customers who have been told Voice Link will be installed instead of repairing their wireline telephone service. Only by firmly refusing Voice Link were both customers able to keep their wireline service.

For this alleged violation, Schneiderman said Verizon is "subject to a $100,000 civil penalty for each and every offense," and that the Public Service Commission should impose the $100,000 fine for each customer and for each day of continuing violation.

Verizon disputed this accusation, saying the Commission order doesn't prevent Verizon from offering Voice Link as an optional service outside Fire Island. Even the customers referred to in Schneiderman's complaint were not denied wireline service, Verizon noted.

Schneiderman repeated his allegations on Tuesday, saying Verizon is repeatedly pressing customers to accept Voice Link instead of a repair of their wireline service. "Even when a customer makes a choice not to accept Voice Link, Verizon continues to press for the substitution at every point of contact," Schneiderman wrote. "Verizon provides false information, such as asserting that storm damage from Sandy rendered the land line network in the Catskills beyond repair."

Verizon has not yet formally responded to this latest allegation, but a Verizon spokesperson told Ars via e-mail that "[a]ny claims of abandonment of service are flat out wrong. ... Contrary to claims in a recent (July 2) petition filed by the New York Attorney General’s Office with the Public Service Commission, Verizon is abiding by a PSC order regarding the company’s use of Voice Link. Fire Island presents a unique situation because Hurricane Sandy washed away our equipment on the Western shore. Outside of the areas impacted by Sandy, we are offering our customers the option of the reliable service that Voice Link offers. But don’t take my word for it, look at the Attorney General office’s original filing which cites an example of a customer who decided to keep the copper service and Verizon did exactly as the customer requested. Again, this is in the AG office’s own filing."

As for gaining permanent approval to deploy Voice Link as the sole option in western Fire Island, Verizon said "we will continue to provide [the commission] with the information they need to judge the long-term effectiveness of Voice Link."

Promoted Comments

Too great for what? Is replacing infrastructure for one locale going to bankrupt the entire company? Why don't they take the opportunity to dig to add fiber to the copper and add value while maintaining their end of the bargain, the one that says they take the bad with the good?

They *do* provide a public utility and need to repair it, no matter how it gets broken. The electrical system comparison is apt: could the electrical company just not repair lines and offer batteries instead? Verizon needs to do the right thing, and if they don't, then they need to pay.

To my eyes, Verizon appears more and more to be one of the most nakedly, unashamedly greedy companies out there, and I am more and more glad that I stopped giving them my money. More power to this lawsuit.

I wish we could get rids of POTS, but the reality is that IP services are nowhere near robust and fail-safe enough yet.

In an extended power outage, POTS is up and running much longer than IP based or even cell tower based service. With the extended power outage a few years ago, only about half the cell towers were up -- which meant some places like my house had NO service -- and the other towers dropped off line as the week dragged on.

167 Reader Comments

Maybe the real takeaway here is that regulation of the wireless business is currently so insufficient that unscrupulous companies are finding ways to try to push people into it just to avoid oversight. It seems this problem could be corrected with better regulation of the wireless and non-POTS telecom services to avoid losing the consumer protections that served the general populace for a century.

Maybe the real takeaway here is that regulation of the wireless business is currently so insufficient that unscrupulous companies are finding ways to try to push people into it just to avoid oversight. It seems this problem could be corrected with better regulation of the wireless and non-POTS telecom services to avoid losing the consumer protections that served the general populace for a century.

No, wireless is super competitive and awesome, as is evidenced by the low low service prices and excellent coverage outside of major metro areas. </sarcasm>

Too great for what? Is replacing infrastructure for one locale going to bankrupt the entire company? Why don't they take the opportunity to dig to add fiber to the copper and add value while maintaining their end of the bargain, the one that says they take the bad with the good?

They *do* provide a public utility and need to repair it, no matter how it gets broken. The electrical system comparison is apt: could the electrical company just not repair lines and offer batteries instead? Verizon needs to do the right thing, and if they don't, then they need to pay.

To my eyes, Verizon appears more and more to be one of the most nakedly, unashamedly greedy companies out there, and I am more and more glad that I stopped giving them my money. More power to this lawsuit.

I wish we could get rid of POTS, but the reality is that IP services are nowhere near as robust and fail-safe enough yet.

In an extended power outage, POTS is up and running much longer than IP based or even cell tower based service. With the extended power outage a few years ago, only about half the cell towers were up -- which meant some places like my house had NO service -- and the other towers dropped off line as the week dragged on.

Maybe the real takeaway here is that regulation of the wireless business is currently so insufficient that unscrupulous companies are finding ways to try to push people into it just to avoid oversight. It seems this problem could be corrected with better regulation of the wireless and non-POTS telecom services to avoid losing the consumer protections that served the general populace for a century.

Totally agree, as the article pointed out, the individual bits of Ma-bell are anxious to leave the wireline business, and cite regulation (specifically profitability due to regulation) as a reason.

Why do they think the government won't eventually step in and regulate their wireless business as well? Are they relying on the governments inability to execute? Maybe their (admittedly) powerful lobbyists? Or is the plan to just bask in gross profitability until regulation of wireless services actually happens?

Too great for what? Is replacing infrastructure for one locale going to bankrupt the entire company? Why don't they take the opportunity to dig to add fiber to the copper and add value while maintaining their end of the bargain, the one that says they take the bad with the good?

They *do* provide a public utility and need to repair it, no matter how it gets broken. The electrical system comparison is apt: could the electrical company just not repair lines and offer batteries instead? Verizon needs to do the right thing, and if they don't, then they need to pay.

To my eyes, Verizon appears more and more to be one of the most nakedly, unashamedly greedy companies out there, and I am more and more glad that I stopped giving them my money. More power to this lawsuit.

Well said. It is all about Verizon not wanting to spend money to maintain the PTSN service. Poor little executives want more money to buy more mansions and boats. Unregulated wireless = more money.

Fire Island is a series of shifting barrier sand dunes. Dug in infrastructure isn't possible, there are no real 'roads' versus packed sand paths, and almost all the houses there are built on pilings above the sand itself. Additionally ..

Quote:

Fire Island's unique location and constantly changing geography play a major role in the protection of its citizens. ... Because there are no roads on inhabited Fire Island, fire department vehicles are heavily modified four-wheel drive with suspension lifts, large diameter off-road tires and recovery equipment, which allow them to traverse the sometimes washed-out, loose sand.

How much per household should a company be forced to spend? Even when it's built on shifting sands?

Too great for what? Is replacing infrastructure for one locale going to bankrupt the entire company? Why don't they take the opportunity to dig to add fiber to the copper and add value while maintaining their end of the bargain, the one that says they take the bad with the good?

They *do* provide a public utility and need to repair it, no matter how it gets broken. The electrical system comparison is apt: could the electrical company just not repair lines and offer batteries instead? Verizon needs to do the right thing, and if they don't, then they need to pay.

To my eyes, Verizon appears more and more to be one of the most nakedly, unashamedly greedy companies out there, and I am more and more glad that I stopped giving them my money. More power to this lawsuit.

Wouldn't fibre run into the same issues as wireless re: power outages? Copper lines are self-powering (well, you know what I mean).

Fire Island is a series of shifting barrier sand dunes. Dug in infrastructure isn't possible, there are no real 'roads' versus packed sand paths, and almost all the houses there are built on pilings above the sand itself. Additionally ..

Quote:

Fire Island's unique location and constantly changing geography play a major role in the protection of its citizens. ... Because there are no roads on inhabited Fire Island, fire department vehicles are heavily modified four-wheel drive with suspension lifts, large diameter off-road tires and recovery equipment, which allow them to traverse the sometimes washed-out, loose sand.

How much per household should a company be forced to spend? Even when it's built on shifting sands?

You know what the universal service fund is? It's a slush fund for telecoms specifically meant to help in wiring unprofitable areas.

I highly doubt they're looking to give back their slush fund, so they can go ahead and run the lines.

For decades, Verizon and its predecessor companies (like AT&T and its predecessor companies) used profits from their protected monopoly on wireline service to fund their expansion into new businesses (IP, wireless.)

Every situation is unique, but the general drift here in Ohio for the telcos is to eliminate service in rural thinly populated areas. Once they have established that as the norm, other areas will be next. This is slowing the advance of HS internet services in rural areas. Verizon has been a leader in this, touting their wireless internet connections. What a joke.... but the PUCO (yes, it is as bad as it's acronym sounds) buys this crap from the utilities and rules in their favor repeatedly. Now our legislature is getting into the act. Big bucks are rolling in for supporting the Telcos.

My opinion seems to be the opposite of other commenters so far, if I was Verizon I'd tell the AG to find someone else to run the copper line and repair it every 6 months.

*Which is a perfect example of why I should never run a business.

The AG is giving them that option, but Version wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want to retain their regional monopoly on wireline access, but don't want to want to actually service that full region.

Too great for what? Is replacing infrastructure for one locale going to bankrupt the entire company?

That was exactly my first thought.

I'm trying to think of an analogy in which this would apply to a normal human. Best I can come up with is the following:

My car gets destroyed by a falling tree. And let's say I don't have insurance and it would be very costly and inconvenient for me to replace my car. Not impossible. Certainly, I could get a loan, or ask for money from relatives. But that would be personally bothersome and annoying.

So, instead of spending the money to replace my car (which I can do, but is annoying and expensive), I simply ask the government to allow me to ride my bicycle on the highway.

This analogy, of course, breaks down badly as no normal human being has personal clout in government to even consider asking for something so ridiculous and outrageous. Multi-billion-dollar mega-corporations, on the other hand...

Fire Island is a series of shifting barrier sand dunes. Dug in infrastructure isn't possible, there are no real 'roads' versus packed sand paths, and almost all the houses there are built on pilings above the sand itself. Additionally ..

Quote:

Fire Island's unique location and constantly changing geography play a major role in the protection of its citizens. ... Because there are no roads on inhabited Fire Island, fire department vehicles are heavily modified four-wheel drive with suspension lifts, large diameter off-road tires and recovery equipment, which allow them to traverse the sometimes washed-out, loose sand.

How much per household should a company be forced to spend? Even when it's built on shifting sands?

This is exactly right.

Look past your (probably justified) hatred of Verizon, and you'll see the real issue here is that people shouldn't even be living in places like fire island, and if they nonetheless choose to, they should bear the consequences of that foolish choice.

Maybe the real takeaway here is that regulation of the wireless business is currently so insufficient that unscrupulous companies are finding ways to try to push people into it just to avoid oversight. It seems this problem could be corrected with better regulation of the wireless and non-POTS telecom services to avoid losing the consumer protections that served the general populace for a century.

Totally agree, as the article pointed out, the individual bits of Ma-bell are anxious to leave the wireline business, and cite regulation (specifically profitability due to regulation) as a reason.

Why do they think the government won't eventually step in and regulate their wireless business as well? Are they relying on the governments inability to execute? Maybe their (admittedly) powerful lobbyists? Or is the plan to just bask in gross profitability until regulation of wireless services actually happens?

That's easy... because they've already spent lobby dollars since day one ensuring THEY wrote the laws to govern so that wireless simply won't and can't be regulated.

Look past your (probably justified) hatred of Verizon, and you'll see the real issue here is that people shouldn't even be living in places like fire island, and if they nonetheless choose to, they should bear the consequences of that foolish choice.

This is exactly wrong. Look past your (probably justified) hatred of people, and you'll see the real issue here is that Verizon shouldn't have accepted a contract it has no intention of complying with, and if they nonetheless choose to take the money, they should bear the consequences of that foolish choice.

Fire Island is a series of shifting barrier sand dunes. Dug in infrastructure isn't possible, there are no real 'roads' versus packed sand paths, and almost all the houses there are built on pilings above the sand itself. Additionally ..

Quote:

Fire Island's unique location and constantly changing geography play a major role in the protection of its citizens. ... Because there are no roads on inhabited Fire Island, fire department vehicles are heavily modified four-wheel drive with suspension lifts, large diameter off-road tires and recovery equipment, which allow them to traverse the sometimes washed-out, loose sand.

How much per household should a company be forced to spend? Even when it's built on shifting sands?

This is exactly right.

Look past your (probably justified) hatred of Verizon, and you'll see the real issue here is that people shouldn't even be living in places like fire island, and if they nonetheless choose to, they should bear the consequences of that foolish choice.

maybe your right. but verizon entered into a contract with the government and is now crying cause they dont want to live up to it.

What's wrong with wireless? Just mandate similar capabilities with what voice link is going to replace, and apply necessary regulation. Don't impose bad business decisions on a company instead of updating the law books with this golden opportunity.

What about the fact that moving from wireline to wireless will dramatically increase the costs of connecting to the internet for the residents of Fire Island? No more un-metered DSL and now incredibly expensive LTE.... Also, as we all know, the FCC doesnt really care about putting in place the regulatory structure for wireless compared to legacy wireline service. Too bad the "third way" failed...

I am all for an all IP network, but the resiliency of the PSTN is unsurpassed - we having nothing else to compare QoS wise.

Look past your (probably justified) hatred of Verizon, and you'll see the real issue here is that people shouldn't even be living in places like fire island, and if they nonetheless choose to, they should bear the consequences of that foolish choice.

This is exactly wrong. Look past your (probably justified) hatred of people, and you'll see the real issue here is that Verizon shouldn't have accepted a contract it has no intention of complying with, and if they nonetheless choose to take the money, they should bear the consequences of that foolish choice.

(FTFY.)

What contract? Can you link the text?

Also, are you familiar with the concept in American contract law called efficient breach?

Dude, I ain't no lawyer. "Schneiderman has accused Verizon of violating a state order" - ask Eric Schneiderman to quote the books. Obviously there's a contract in place, many laws and statutes, etc. Efficient breach my ass given that customers report that the new service is lower in quality compared to what they were previously receiving, and given that it won't stay on during a power outage. Telecom area-monopolies piss me off enough as it is - they've contracted for a pseudo monopoly to service that area. If it costs more than they estimated to service it, then they made a bad business decision, simple as that. Given that they're currently servicing the area, they need to pay up to fix it, or gtfo and let somebody else do the job. If nobody steps up to replace them, that's when we should be having a conversation about doing it differently.

What's wrong with wireless? Just mandate similar capabilities with what voice link is going to replace, and apply necessary regulation. Don't impose bad business decisions on a company instead of updating the law books with this golden opportunity.

Why is this a golden opportunity? And how would you get around the fact that wireless is simply not as reliable as wired? Verizon will surely write exceptions on guarantees based on that, thereby ensuring that the QoS will not be comparable.

What's wrong with wireless? Just mandate similar capabilities with what voice link is going to replace, and apply necessary regulation. Don't impose bad business decisions on a company instead of updating the law books with this golden opportunity.

Many man-made and natural disasters have shown that wireless networks are not as reliable as wired networks. To maintain existing capabilities, I expect the wired network would be the cheaper option. Verizon's golden opportunity should be to roll out state-of-the-art fiber to the homes in this region, but they no longer expand their FTTH network due to the lower profit margin vs. their cellular network.

What's wrong with wireless? Just mandate similar capabilities with what voice link is going to replace, and apply necessary regulation. Don't impose bad business decisions on a company instead of updating the law books with this golden opportunity.

You can't mandate the impossible. Wireless can't send power to keep phones on even if the power is off. Wireless can't get the same internet access. Sounds like there are issues with voice quality, etc.

Attempting to put impossible mandates like this in place will set terrible precedents for other, more acceptable, uses of this technology in other places in the law.

Don't impose bad law policies on the government instead of enforcing that golden technology be used in more appropriate applications.

Look past your (probably justified) hatred of Verizon, and you'll see the real issue here is that people shouldn't even be living in places like fire island, and if they nonetheless choose to, they should bear the consequences of that foolish choice.

Also, are you familiar with the concept in American contract law called efficient breach?

I upvoted your original comment because I was certain you were being sarcastic - were you?

Also, can you argue that efficient breach is advantageous to the residents of Fire Island? I think it's pretty clear that it's not. The quoted example on Wikipedia of how it helps society as a whole does not apply here, as it's not a better bid that Verizon is trying to fulfill, but rather, they are trying to avoid restoring the service they promised (contractually or implicitly).

What a clever retort! You've been reduced to what is essentially name calling. What a clear explanation of "efficient beach", and how that would apply, you've provided to back up your question! What reason would we have to have any expectation that no contract exists? Only the AG of the state of New York has claimed there has been a punishable breach. Your powers of debate have outright astounded me.

Too great for what? Is replacing infrastructure for one locale going to bankrupt the entire company? Why don't they take the opportunity to dig to add fiber to the copper and add value while maintaining their end of the bargain, the one that says they take the bad with the good?

They *do* provide a public utility and need to repair it, no matter how it gets broken. The electrical system comparison is apt: could the electrical company just not repair lines and offer batteries instead? Verizon needs to do the right thing, and if they don't, then they need to pay.

To my eyes, Verizon appears more and more to be one of the most nakedly, unashamedly greedy companies out there, and I am more and more glad that I stopped giving them my money. More power to this lawsuit.

This^

I work in IT. I once had occasion to attend a Happy Hour with an EMC executive who told an anecdote about a friend of his who was a Verizon executive. He told this story in response to me expressing my negative attitude toward Verizon. He told me that his executive friend had told him "Verizon Wireless is not a wireless services company. It is a billing company. If I could figure out how to charge for air I would. No really. I have some of the boys in legal working on the theory that it is infrastructure. Aparrently we would have to rent it from the government though as they assert that they own it and are working on tax legislation pertaining to it."

They are trying to take away all of our property and rights. You are going to look up next week and find that you own nothing and rent everything.

Something needs to happen with these wireless carriers in the U.S. Whatever happened to that public spectrum Google bid on years ago? Wasn't that spectrum supposed to help increase competition or lower costs?

You can't mandate the impossible. Wireless can't send power to keep phones on even if the power is off. Wireless can't get the same internet access. Sounds like there are issues with voice quality, etc.

Attempting to put impossible mandates like this in place will set terrible precedents for other, more acceptable, uses of this technology in other places in the law.

Don't impose bad law policies on the government instead of enforcing that golden technology be used in more appropriate applications.

I would think that the wireless would generally have better reliability. Yes, you can't power on a phone via wireless, at least not reasonably, but a cell phone has a battery. In my experience, which I know is not statistically useful, a cell phone has been more useful in power outages/emergencies because phone lines themselves are damaged sometimes, and even then, an increasing number of phones are not functional without a power supply.

The short of it is that the Wireless offering is more limited in features; such as doesn't work with medical alerts, wouldn't allow existing DSL connections, and ect... Factor in the use of USF monies, by Verizon, that are specifically there to "help" companies such as Verizon provide telephony services to rural/ hard to reach areas and I would agree that there is a breach of contract too, in regard to their taking of USF monies.

Fire Island is a series of shifting barrier sand dunes. Dug in infrastructure isn't possible, there are no real 'roads' versus packed sand paths, and almost all the houses there are built on pilings above the sand itself. Additionally ..

Quote:

Fire Island's unique location and constantly changing geography play a major role in the protection of its citizens. ... Because there are no roads on inhabited Fire Island, fire department vehicles are heavily modified four-wheel drive with suspension lifts, large diameter off-road tires and recovery equipment, which allow them to traverse the sometimes washed-out, loose sand.

How much per household should a company be forced to spend? Even when it's built on shifting sands?

Its a discussion that a lot of places in the world are going to start to need to have. It the proper "fixed" part of a "fixed line" is so unweildy and infeasable to the level of never being able to pay for itself before the expected end of the technology, then its clear the Corporate Model is the wrong tool for the job - just as to me it appears conventional fixed line to everyone seems to be the wrong tool for this job as well.

The options seem to be, some government run, or autonomous-but-government-funded-and-backed service (perhaps outsourced to another company on a profit basis, or run locally) to build and maintain the network (and perhaps operate too) to retain a regular service, or if the corporate model must be kept entreily, some sort of reasonable adjustment.

Maybe a series of emergency landline points (payphones?), landline provision in some parts where its feasable, and the wireless link for the more remote and unfeasable options.